"For a few weeks until July 24, 2010, the poll question on RockArtBlog was Do You Believe That Secrecy Protects Rock Art Sites, Or Is The Broadest Transparency And Education Possible More Effective? The answer choices are listed below along with their votes.
Open and effective education and site stewardship provide the best protection. 4 votes, 44.44%
Plant poison ivy and fertilize regularly. 3 votes, 33.33%
Controlled access limited to acknowledged researchers and scholars. 1 vote, 11.11%
Keep it totally secret - do not let anyone (including vandals) know where it is. 1 vote, 11.11%..."
Open and effective education and site stewardship provide the best protection. 4 votes, 44.44%
Plant poison ivy and fertilize regularly. 3 votes, 33.33%
Controlled access limited to acknowledged researchers and scholars. 1 vote, 11.11%
Keep it totally secret - do not let anyone (including vandals) know where it is. 1 vote, 11.11%..."
Peter Faris, RockArtBlog
5 comments :
I agree that open and effective education is the best, but at the same time I am reluctant to identify what I believe are burial sites. The problem is that not all sites can be patrolled effectively, and there are too many out there who would think nothing of tearing a cairn apart to find "treasure" to sell on the open market. Forget about respect for history. All these treasure hunters see are dollar signs.
For what it is worth, I have recommend these guidelines:
http://rockpiles.blogspot.com/2006/01/to-publish-or-not-to-publish.html
Add to them one more guideline: that whoever finds a site should have control over its publicity. Being shown a site does not transfer that right to you.
I wrote a web article years ago about an interesting stone row site in Montville, CT, not far from the "souterrain." A year or so after the article was posted, I hiked to this stone row site and discovered that a 'New Age" type had constructed a shrine against one of the boulders, removing stones from the row to create a wall for one side of his shrine, which was covered with a tarp. When I saw what was destroyed, I felt that perhaps I included too much information in my web report and had certain comments removed. Of course, the New Ager could have found the place on his own. But I've been sensitive to giving directions to a lithic site ever since this incident.
Another story: I went back to a rock pile site I had documented, in Boylston at Rocky Pond without giving directions to the site and found that the New England Forestry folks had logged the place.
Another time I went back to a different site I had documented in Sterling without giving directions to the site and, again, found that it had been logged over (possibly by the same people.)
I may have missed Tim's point that the majority favor education.
Post a Comment